DIVISION OF BILL-RULING BY MR.

SPEAKER.

William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

That it be an instruction to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, if it thinks fit, to divide Bill No. 17, an Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, into two Bills.

Thomas Simpson Sproule
(Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

With reference to this motion I have the honour to submit the following:

The motion referred to asks the House to give power-by instruction-to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, to divide Bill No. 17 into two Bids.

This Bill was referred to that committee on February the 15th instant, and is con-

sequently in the possession of the committee and is not on the Orders of the House.

On the subject of instruction to committees, May (11th edition, page 48), states that an instruction is necessary to enable a committee to divide a Bill into two Bills; but (see page 481) he further states that:

A motion for an instruction which seeks to confer upon a committee of the Whole House power to make amendments in a Bill that is already possessed by the committee is out of order and this rule applies to instructions to standing' or joint committees.

Bourinot iiiferentially sustains this position on page 651, 3rd edition, where it is * observed that an instruction to a committee should be moved as soon as the Order for the committee has been read by the Clerk, showing that the Bill must then be in possession of the House when instruction is given.

In the case of Bill 17, now that it is in the possession of the committee and not of the House, it is not in order to entertain this motion. This Bill being in the possession of the committee, it would be in order for the committee to report the Bill back to the House with such recommendations as are thought desirable, including that of receiving power to divide the Bill into two Bills. The House could then take such action in the premises as it considers advisable.

A resolution of a similar character to the present appears, however, to have passed the House in 1888, the Bill in question being then in the possession of the committee and no notice of motion having been previously given. There was no ruling given by the Speaker on the propriety of the action taken: indeed, the question was not raised.

I do not think that case constitutes a precedent and consequently I have ruled as above.